CHAPTERS V-VII: THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT
Introduction. — As Matthew conceived it — and one cannot doubt that this conception goes back to Jesus — the sermon is the program of a new perfection that must replace legal justice. It is the perfection that Jesus demands of his disciples, and which he intends to substitute for the justice that the Pharisees praised. But the Pharisees relied on the Law. What would become of the Law?
By Law, we must understand here the moral law. While the law of Moses contained the rules of worship and the substance of what we call civil law and penal law, with some notions of international law, Jesus does not dwell on these points. One can say that he has in view only the Decalogue, in its fundamental principles and in some of its conclusions, written in the Law.
This moral law consisted of two elements. One was positive, containing in germ all perfection: the commandment to love God (Deut. 6:5). This one could serve as a point of support and impetus for the entire new order. Jesus will say this clearly enough (Matt. 22:34-40; Mark 12:28-34; Luke 10:25-28). This time he does not speak of it directly, because the Rabbis had not ordinarily understood its importance, and because the law of Moses, as a moral law, was above all a law concerning external acts. It promulgated especially prohibitions, and when the form was positive and seemed to enter into the order of sentiments, as with the honor due to parents, this commandment actually bore on the derogations it disapproved of in advance, or on specific obligations to be determined. This is the character of every law, and all Christian morality, insofar as it is the explanation of the Decalogue, proceeds thus: to what is one bound, what must one avoid? The Law, by itself, does not push toward perfection; it is satisfied if certain external acts are accomplished or avoided.
It is true that the law of Moses was a divine law, and as such it could have pronounced a divine sanction, that is, rewards or punishments of a supernatural order, at the moment when God pronounces on actions accomplished during life. But in fact the law of Moses did not explicitly foresee any remuneration beyond the grave. The cause of this was, it seems, in its national character. The Law had been given to the people. It was the people who had committed themselves, and who were to undergo punishments or receive rewards. Toward individuals, the people were responsible for the observance of the Law, by inflicting particular penalties. It was more difficult for the people to reward virtue; it is rare that laws propose this goal. But in the spirit of the legislation, it was thought that God, who had promised prosperity to the nation if it were faithful, would be no less just and liberal toward individuals. This is the spirit of Psalm 1: "Blessed is the man... whose delight is in the law of the LORD... whatever he does prospers."
From the national character of the Law flowed another consequence: the limitation of obligations of affection toward one's neighbor to the race of Israel, except for certain rules of humanity and justice toward foreigners.
And finally, since the pious Israelite represented his God in the opinion of the world, on his reputation for virtue depended somewhat the honor of his God, so that it was almost his duty, not only to manage public opinion, but to acquire the esteem of men, which could be understood in all good faith and honor.
Let us note further that this law, accepted by Israel, had the character of a covenant. The moral prescriptions were in the interest of men, but did not exceed human powers. Private violations did not prevent society from being established on these rules, and it benefited greatly from making them prevail. Israel, a contracting party in the covenant, did not feel on this account very inclined to ask for God's help, and the Israelites appropriated this spirit. Prayer was one of the cardinal points of Scripture; but prayer that implores mercy, rather than prayer that asks for strength not to sin, that which implores light rather than help for the will.
We must agree that under the influence of Revelation, the light had grown. The Pharisees knew of the world to come, and it was in view of this world to come that one was bound to practice justice. But, on the other hand, the legal character of justice had imperceptibly made prevail a spirit of strict justice, that is, limited to the accomplishment or abstention from external acts. It was in this punctual but material observance of the Law that the speculative genius of the rabbis and their action on the people were exhausted.
The Talmud is the fruit of intense moral and religious activity, exercising itself always and uniquely on the possibilities of violating or satisfying positive precepts. No one had ever had time to stop to sound out the value of the dispositions of the soul toward its God. At least it was the general tendency to give as the type of holiness the accomplishment of external rite. That these men, little concerned to have recourse to grace, too often had only the facade of perfection, this is what Jesus reproached them for. Especially since, feeling responsible for the honor of God, above all those who spent their lives in the study of the Law, they held passionately to gathering the approbation of men and marks of esteem. Despite the ever-growing ascendancy of eternal perspectives, the leaders of Judaism did not renounce this tangible proof, this permanent miracle that would have been the temporal reward given by God to the just. At the very time of the Maccabees, one could not admit that faithful Jews had succumbed in the holy war (2 Macc. 12:40). Thus wealth was to be regarded as a demonstration and reward of justice, as well as good reputation. As for the limits that national egoism imposed on the precept of charity, it is useless to insist, nor on the satisfaction that their justice caused the perfect, which prepared them badly to have recourse to prayer.
Thus the ancient Law, imperfect because of its character as law, especially if one left in shadow the principle of charity that would have saved everything, imperfect because of the temporal sanctions it alone proposed, imperfect because it was given to a people, and only to one people, imperfect in its aspect as a contract which could be satisfied, this Law presented itself then as improved by the higher hopes of the faith of the Jews, but on the other hand less salutary because of the accretions of the doctors, not in the sense of the perfection of the heart, but in the development of infinite subtleties which always had as their goal to impose recourse to the doctors if one wanted to be in order.
It is this entire order of things that the Savior regards as constituting an insufficient justice. The ancient law itself is declared imperfect.
However, not one iota of the Law will pass away. This is because Jesus intends to take away nothing from its moral prohibitions. Everything that is prescribed or forbidden in the moral order is prescribed or forbidden forever. But certain points, like repudiation, retaliation, certain hostile sentiments, could be tolerated, which will no longer be. The Law will therefore be perfected. From this point of view, one could have spoken of a new Law. However, Jesus did not use this term. What he preaches is not a law, it is an indefinite perfection that includes counsels for advancing near to God. The Law remains: it continues to say: do not do this, do not do that. But its sanction will be purely spiritual. There is no relation between the new justice and temporal happiness. One would rather have to say that the relation is reversed. Moreover, the law is imposed on each of those who listen: there is no longer question of a people of Israel. Individuals do not contract a covenant with God. They listen to his word and are bound to put it into practice. For this they are invited to have recourse to prayer. As men, they are bound to love all men as their neighbor. They must not however seek their esteem, but act with a view to God alone, seeking to put into their acts that interior perfection whose model is in God.
If one takes into account the way in which the new interior perfection was opposed to the ancient legalism, one sees how all the parts of the sermon on the mount respond to the needs of souls that had to be oriented otherwise than the Law did, as it was understood by the Scribes. They had to be freed even from what in the Law had a historical purpose, a temporal mission. The discourse of Matthew is therefore a whole perfectly conceived with a view to combating a Pharisaic ideal. Without entering into Pauline discussions, it tends toward the abrogation of the Mosaic dispensation, while retaining the principle of the eternal value of the moral base it had laid, and which was henceforth to take as its ideal the perfection of God.
It is very easy to show that Jesus destroyed nothing of prescribed morality. And yet the change is very profound. They looked toward the Law which must not be transgressed; he shows God, the Father whom one must love and satisfy. Thus Judaism and Christianity can preserve the same book, and yet they are two religions.
Analysis. — The sermon begins (5:3-12) with a series of very firm but strange affirmations for human sense, which give a presentiment of a new doctrine, which will be no better understood than that of the ancient prophets. But persecution well endured puts the seal on the beatitudes. One knows clearly what are the dispositions of man that will be rewarded in the kingdom of heaven. The traditional principle of retribution is maintained, but one obtains it by what men esteem little or regard as a disgrace.
5:13-16. Warning to take seriously the practice of works, in the interest of others.
The body of the discourse comprises two themes: 1) What are the relations of Jesus' doctrine with the Law and the Prophets (5:17-48), of his spirit with the spirit of the hypocrites (6:1-18)? 2) What must positively be the sentiments and practices of the disciples (6:19-7:12)?
The first point comprises: a) the principal affirmation: the Law will not be abolished, but brought to its perfection, so as to constitute a justice superior to that of the Pharisees (5:17-20); b) The enumeration of six points where the new justice must be more perfect: homicide (21-24); adultery (27-29); repudiation (31-32); oaths (33-37); retaliation (38-42); sentiments toward enemies (43-48). c) The indication of some points that highlight the new justice, especially the interior spirit that is concerned only with God alone: almsgiving (6:1-4); prayer (5-15); fasting (16-18).
The second point comprises various counsels on: 1) attachment to temporal goods destroyed by the search for the kingdom and justice (19-34); 2) The conduct to maintain when one is concerned with the spiritual good of others (7:1-6); 3) Insistent prayer (7-11). The whole is terminated by the golden rule (7:12).
The body of the discourse being closed as it had begun, the whole sermon ends with a triple monition: a) Choose the good way (13-14); b) Beware of false prophets (15-20); c) Not forget the importance of works (21-23). Finally the conclusion: act after having listened (24-27).
This whole ensemble is therefore arranged in a beautiful order; it is the plan traced forever of the perfection of the disciples of Christ, oriented toward the kingdom of God, determined to do the will of God.
Relation of Matthew with Luke. — For a long time, people have asked whether the sermon on the mount is the same as that of Luke, in loco campestri (6:20-49). For us the question no longer arises in the same manner. The resemblances and divergences of Luke oblige us and authorize us to ask whether the discourse did not first exist in another form, and whether we are bound to attribute it to Jesus as it is in Matthew? Maldonatus posed the principle: "I have already warned that one should not now seek in the evangelists the connection of sentences; because they did not wish to write in the order in which things were done or said by Christ. This is especially observed in his sermons, in which they recount neither all that he said, nor in the order in which he said it, content to commemorate the principal heads of his doctrine" (on Matt. 7:1). When one seeks to establish in Matthew the sequence of ideas, one notices that certain passages have the appearance of additions.
These are:
- 5:13-16 the comparison of salt and light (Luke 14:34-35 and 11:33).
- 5:18 the permanence of the Law (Luke 16:17).
- 5:25-26 reconciliation (Luke 12:57-59).
- 6:7-13 the institution of the Lord's Prayer, breaking the most characteristic rhythm (Luke 11:2-4).
- 6:19-34 on temporal goods (Luke 12:33-34; 11:34-36; 16:13; 12:22-32).
- 7:7-11 on insistent prayer (Luke 11:9-13).
- 7:22-23 on the reprobation of certain disciples (Luke 13:26-27).
The argumentation is found in the commentary. But we note from now that none of these passages is found in Luke's discourse, although they are all found elsewhere, often in a better context. This confirmation of internal criticism by the authority of another evangelist is most satisfying.
The discourse constituted in this way has more unity, and consequently a more distinct characteristic.
Many critics still judge it too long, and claim to reduce it by removing moreover what is not found in Luke.
These are: a) 5:5 (received Greek text), 7, 8, 9, that is four beatitudes. b) 5:17-20 the thesis in relation to the Law (Luke 16:17, only on the permanence of the Law). c) 5:21-24; 27-48 the six perfections as such. d) 6:1-4; 5-8; 16-18, the three interior perfections. e) 7:6 "Do not give what is holy to dogs." f) 7:13-14 the two ways (Luke 13:23-24, the narrow door). g) 7:15-17 the false prophets.
But this would be to remove from Matthew's discourse precisely what makes its physiognomy of comparison with the ancient justice and the Law.
Luke could very well have read all this in the document he used to compose his discourse, but omit it, precisely because he wanted to give it the character of a proclamation of the law of charity, without explaining to the Gentiles what the ancient Law and the practice of the Pharisees were about. And precisely he kept from the perfections what was relative to charity (Luke 6:29-30; 27-28, 32-36). One also understands that instead of eight beatitudes he preferred four beatitudes and four woes. He neglected the two ways because he had elsewhere the narrow door (13:23-24), and of the false prophets he kept what regarded works. To exclude from the primitive discourse all that is not found at once in Luke and in Matthew is to disarticulate two harmonious compositions to have only, especially in Matthew, a residue whose order would not be clear.
Primitive discourse. — We think therefore that the discourse, as we conceive it by removing what appears added and which at the same time is lacking in Luke, could very well have been pronounced by the Savior, and preserved by tradition. If one believes tradition, attested by the four evangelists, Jesus did not only pronounce sentences and propose parables. He treated certain subjects with amplitude. That of the relations of his doctrine with the Law was almost imposed. And tradition could very well have preserved these discourses, especially in this antithetical form so striking that the discourse has in Matthew; an introduction (5:3-12), a declaration of principle (5:17-20), six perfections (5:21-48) plus three oppositions (6:1-18, minus 9-15) with three counsels (7:1-5, 6, 12) and three monitions (7:13ff., 15-20, 21).
This first discourse was written in Aramaic, or one can say transcribed as tradition transmitted it, by the apostle Matthew. It could have reached Luke in Greek. But we do not mean to affirm that the Aramaic Matthew contained nothing more. It is quite probable that it is the evangelist who composed the whole discourse as it is in Matthew. Perhaps however one must attribute to the Greek translator the insertion of 7:22-23.
Circumstance of time. — In its current state, Matthew's discourse is placed too early in the chronological order of Jesus' preaching. It seems that he already has disciples who represent him (5:13-16), who form a separate group (6:25-34), who can work miracles in his name (7:22). But if one regards these passages as additional according to our analysis, nothing prevents seeing in Jesus' sermon a declaration posed from the first days of his ministry. Luke placed it at the moment when Mark's narrative seemed to call for it. But Matthew held to another tradition that one can believe very good, and without concerning himself with Mark's order.
Matthew and Mark. — We have not spoken of the relations of Matthew and Mark in the discourse. One sees no trace of dependence, except perhaps that the application on forgiveness after the Lord's Prayer (Matt. 6:14-15) which is in addition, could have been written according to Mark 11:25ff.; but the contrary is more probable. When Mark has a similar thought, in two cases Matthew himself has a parallel passage: Matt. 18:8-9 and Mark 9:43, 45, 47-48; Matt. 19:9 and Mark 10:11-12; or else it concerns proverbial sayings: Matt. 5:13 and Mark 9:50; Matt. 7:1 and Mark 4:24.
Therefore neither did Mark use the discourse, even in its first form, nor did Matthew borrow anything from Mark to compose it.
Special works: Erich Bischoff, Jesus and the Rabbis, The Sermon on the Mount and "Kingdom of Heaven" in their Independence from Rabbinism; Leipzig, 1905. The Sermon on the Mount in Light of Strophic Theory, by David Heinrich Müller, Vienna, 1908. The Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7, Luke 6:20-49) Examined from the Perspective of Source Criticism and Conceptual History, by G. F. Georg Heinrici, Leipzig, 1900.
Without forgetting the admirable commentary of Saint Augustine: On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount according to Matthew, Two Books [PL XXXIV, 1229-1308].
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment